A strange world we live in. In the US, there were massive protests of illegal immigrants in many major US cities, including a march of 500,000 participants in Los Angeles. It is unheard of that so many people who are in a country illegally could assemble in a major city and wave the flags of another country while making demands for more rights from their host nation. American flags were even taken down in one or two instances, even though these people are strongly opposed to returning to Mexico.

As absurd as this outrage is, it could be far, far worse. What if the Los Angeles protests were not peaceful?

In France, economic stagnation and unemployment rates of 22% for young people (and up to 50% for immigrant Muslims) have brought French society to a nightmare worse than most Americans could even imagine. In an attempt to make just a small dent in this problem, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin suggested that employers should have to power to terminate underperforming employees under the age of 26. The job security of underperforming employees over the age of 26 are not even being discussed yet. This would enable businesses to feel less cautious about hiring a new employee, knowing that they could discharge the employee for poor performance. In turn, this would permit more young people, particularly underpriveleged Muslim youths, to earn a living. But the culture of entitlement and rationalization of sloth in France is so great that even this minor dose of capitalism provoked upper-class French youths into riots, with cars being torched and riot police having to use teargas. It is telling that so many of these upper-crust people want guaranteed job security even at the cost of creating a fertile climate for small businesses and decreasing the unemployment of Muslim youths. What about being entrepreneurs themselves? What about egalite and fraternite?

A few months earlier, Islamic youths rioted in France for a host of reasons including their 50% unemployment rate. In essense, they are fed up with bearing the brunt of the government-supported laziness of the upper-class students mentioned above. Over 4000 cars were torched over the 16-day uprising. These two groups are on a collision course for an explosive confrontation in the near future.

It is almost too late for Europe to reverse its population decline and its invasion by hostile, unassimilable foreigners. Sure, if Europe slashed its tax rates by a third, overhauled labor laws to be more pro-business, and incentivized young couples with a reward for having three children, they could save themselves. But if even a tiny reform like Villepin's provokes riots, then the psychology of young Europeans is not ready to begin the process of self-criticism and sacrifice.

Europe is on the precipice of doom. America, by contrast, has people who came here illegally to work, and still has an unemployment rate that Europe can only dream of. The biggest obstacle for the American people is internalizing what the difference between legal and illegal immigration is; hardly as insurmountable of a challenge as changing a society's entire attitude towards work, competition, entrepreneurship, and reproduction.

First, the Earth (whether flat or spherical) was considered to be the center of the universe. Then, the Sun was considered to be center of the universe. Eventually, mankind came to realize that the Sun is just one of 200 to 400 billion stars within the Milky Way galaxy, which itself is just one among hundreds of billions of galaxies in the known universe, and there may even be other universes.

Astronomers have long believed that many stars would have planets around them, including some Earth-like planets. Carl Sagan wrote and spoke extensively about this in the 1970s and 80s, but we did not have the technology to detect such planets at the time, so the discussions remained theoretical. There were no datapoints by which to estimate what percentage of stars had what number of planets, of which what fraction were Earth-like.

The first confirmed extrasolar planet was discovered in 1995. Since then, continually improving technology has yielded discovery of more than one per month, for a grand total of about 176 to date. So far, most known extrasolar planets have been Jupiter-sized or larger, with the detection of Earth-sized planets beyond our current technology.

But the Impact of Computing is finding its way here as well, and new instruments will continue to deliver an exponentially growing ability to detect smaller and more distant planets. Mere projection of the rate of discovery since 1995 predicts that thousands of planets, some of them Earth-sized, will be discovered by 2015. To comfortably expect this, we just need to examine whether advances in astronomical observation are keeping up with this trend. Let's take a detailed look at the chart below from a Jet Propulsion Laboratory publication, which has a lot of information.

The bottom horizontal axis is the distance from the star, and the top horizontal axis is the orbital period (the top and bottom can contradict each other for stars of different mass, but let's put that aside for now). The right vertical axis is the mass as a multiple of the Earth's mass. The left vertical axis is the same thing, merely in Jupiter masses (318 times that of the Earth).

Current detection capability represents the area above the purple and first two blue lines, and the blue, red, and yellow dots represent known extrasolar planets. Planets less massive than Saturn have been detected only when they are very close to their stars. The green band represents the zone on the chart where an Earth-like planet, with similar mass and distance from its star as our Earth, would reside. Such a planet would be a candidate for life.

The Kepler Space Observatory will launch in mid-2008, and by 2010-11 will be able to detect planets in the green zone around stars as far as 1000 light years away. It is set to examine 100,000 different stars, so it would be very surprising if the KSO didn't find dozens of planets in the green-zone.

After 2015, instruments up to 1000 times more advanced than those today, such as the Overwhelmingly Large Telescope and others, will enable us to conduct more detailed observations of the hundreds of green-zone planets that will be identified by then. We will begin to get an idea of their color (and thus the presence of oceans) and atmospheric composition. From there, we will have a distinct list of candidate planets that could support Earth-like life.

This will be a fun one to watch over the next decade. Wait for the first headline of 'Earth-like planet discovered' in 2010 or 2011.

Refer to Part I for the reasons behind the rapidly declining proportion of warfare being conducted in the world as time progresses. As more nations achieve prosperity and democracy, the costs of war outweigh the benefits.

To predict the future risk of major wars, we can begin by assessing the state of some of the largest and/or riskiest countries in the world. Success at achieving democracy and a per-capita GDP greater that $10,000/yr are highlighted in green. We can also throw in the UN Human Development Index, which is a composite of these two factors, and track the rate of progress of the HDI over the last 30 years. In general, countries with scores greater than 0.850 have met the aforementioned requirements of prosperity and democracy. There are many more countries with a score greater than 0.850 today than there were in 1975.

Let's see how some select countries stack up.

China : The per-capita income is rapidly closing in on the $10,000/yr threshold, but democracy is a distant dream. I have stated that China will see a sharp economic slowdown in the next 10 years unless they permit more personal freedoms, and thus nurture entrepreneurship. Technological forces will continue to pressure the Chinese Communist Party, and if this transition is moderately painless, the ripple effects will be seen in many other communist or autocratic states that China supports, and will move the world strongly towards greater peace and freedom. The single biggest question for the world is whether China's transition happens without major shocks or bloodshed. I am optimistic, as I believe the CCP is more interested in economic gain than clinging to an ideology and one-party rule, which is a sharp contrast from the Mao era where 40 million people died over ideology-driven economic schemes. Cautiously optimistic.

India : A secular democracy has existed for a long time, but economic growth lagged far behind. Now, India is catching up, and will soon be a bulwark for democracy and stability for the whole world. India is only now realizing how much the world will depend on it. Very optimistic.

Russia : A lack of progress in the HDI is worrisome. It could yet undo the peaceful transition from the Soviet system that the world benefit from. Hopefully, energy and technology industries can help Russia increase its population growth rate, and up its HDI. Cautiously optimistic.

Indonesia : With more Muslims than the entire Middle East put together, Indonesia took a large step towards democracy in 1999 (improving its HDI score), and is doing moderately well economically. Economic growth needs to accelerate in order to cross $10,000/yr by 2020. Cautiously optimistic.

Pakistan : The divergence between the paths of India and Pakistan has been recognized by the US, and Pakistan, with over 50 nuclear warheads, is also where Osama bin Laden and thousands of other terrorists are currently hiding. Any major terrorist attack will inevitably be traced to individuals operating in Pakistan, which has regressed from democracy to dictatorship, and is teetering on the edge of religious fundamentalism. The economy is growing quickly, however, and this is the only hope of averting a disaster. Pessimistic.

Iraq : Although Iraq is not a large country, its importance to the world is disproportionately significant. Bordering so many other non-democratic nations, if Iraq can succeed, the pressure on its neighbors to adapt will be immense. The destiny of the US is also interwined with Iraq, as the outcome of the current War in Iraq will determine the ability of America to take any other action, against any other nation, in the future. Cautiously optimistic, but depends on America's resolve.

Iran : Many would be surprised to learn that Iran is actually not all that poor, and the Iranian people have enough to lose that they are not keen on a large war against a powerful coalition. However, the autocratic regime that keeps the Iranian people suppressed has brutally quashed democratic movements. The secret to turning Iran into a democracy is its neighbor, Iraq. If Iraq can succeed, the pressure on Iran exerted by Internet access and globalization next door will be immense. This will continue to nibble at the edges of Iranian society, and the regime will collapse before 2015 even without a US invasion. If Iran's leadership insists on a confrontation over their nuclear program, the regime will collapse even sooner. Cautiously optimistic, pending Iraq.

So Iraq really is a keystone state, and the struggle to prevail over the forces that would derail democracy has major repurcussions for many nations. The US, and the world, cannot afford for Iraq to fail. If we succeed, the world of 2015 will have stamped out belligerence from yet another formerly notorious region. At this point, all remaining roads to disastrous tragedy lead to Pakistan.

As long as Pervez Musharaff runs Pakistan, he may manage to keep it from flying apart into fanatical fragments. But the fact that the father of Pakistan's nuclear program was selling nuclear secrets, and that the likes of Osama bin Laden have found sanctuary in Pakistan, makes for a very worrisome combination. The ultimate 'day of infamy' could be upon us long before Pakistan has any chance of attempting to restore democracy or achieving economic prosperity.

But smaller-scale terrorism is nothing new. It just was not taken as seriously back when nations were fighting each other in much larger conflicts. The 1983 Beirut bombing that killed 241 Americans did not dominate the news for more than two weeks, as it was during the far more serious Cold War. Today, the absence of wars between nations brings terrorism into the spotlight that it could not have previously secured.

Wars against terrorism are a paradigm shift, because where a war like World War II involved symmetrical warfare between declared armies, the War on Terror involves asymmetrical warfare in both directions. Neither party has yet gained a full understanding of the power it has over the other.

A few terrorists with a small budget can kill thousands of innocents without confronting a military force. Guerilla warfare can tie down the mighty US military for years until the public grows weary of the stalemate, even while the US cannot permit itself to use more than a tiny fraction of its power in retaliation. Developed nations spend vastly more money on political and media activites centered around the mere discussion of terrorism than the terrorists themselves need to finance a major attack on these nations.

At the same time, pervasively spreading Internet access, satellite television, and consumer brands continue to disseminate globalization and lure the attention of young people in terrorist states. This unrelentingly and irreversibly erodes the fabric of pre-modern fanaticism at almost no cost to the US and other free nations. The efforts by fascist regimes to obstruct the mists of the information ethersphere from entering their societies is so futile as to be comical. Bidirectional asymmetry is the new nature of war, and the side that learns how to harness the asymmetrical advantage it has over the other is the side that will win.

It is the wage of prosperous, happy societies to be envied, hated, and forced to withstand threats that they cannot reciprocate back onto the enemy. The US has overcome foes as formidable as the Axis Powers and the Soviet Union, yet we appear to be at a stalemate against a pre-modern, unprofessional band of deviants that does not even have the resources of a small nation and has not invented a single technology. The new war is thus ultimately not with the terrorists, but with ourselves - our complacency, short attention spans, and propensity for fashionable ignorance over the lessons of history. Whether we awaken to the advantages we do have over our enemies before or after the terrorists get a bit too lucky and kill a million of us in a day remains to be seen.

Given the massive media coverage of the Iraq War, and the pop-culture fashion of being opposed to it, one could be led to think that this is one of the most major wars ever fought. Therein lies the proof that we are actually living in the most peaceful time ever in human history.

Just a few decades ago, wars and genocides killing upwards of a million people were commonplace, with more than one often underway at once. Remember these?

We can thus conclude that by historical standards, the current Iraq War is tiny, and can barely be found on the list of historical death tolls. That it gets so much attention merely indicates how little warfare is going on in the world.

Why have so many countries quitely adapted to peaceful coexistence? Why is a war between Britain and France, or Russia and Germany, or the US and Japan, nearly impossible today?

We can start with the observation that never have two democratic countries, with per-capita GDPs greater than $10,000/year, gone to war with each other. The decline in warfare in Europe and Asia corelates closely with multiple countries meeting these two conditions over the last few decades, and this can continue as more countries graduate to this standard of freedom and wealth. The chain of logic is as follows :

1) Nations with elected governments and free-market systems tend to be the overwhelming majority of countries that achieve per-capita incomes greater than $10,000/year. Only a few oil-rich monarchies are the exception to this rule.

2) A nation with high per-capita income tends to conduct extensive trade with other nations of high prosperity, resulting in the ever-deepening integration of these economies with each other. A war would disrupt the economies of both participants as well as those of neutral trading partners. Since the citizens of these nations would suffer financially from such a war, it is not considered by elected officials.

3) As more of the world's people gain a vested interest in the stability and health of the interlocking global economic system, fewer and fewer countries will consider international warfare as anything other than a lose-lose proposition.

4) More nations can experience their citizenry moving up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, allowing knowledge-based industries thrive, and thus making international trade continuously easier and more extensive.

5) Since economic growth is continuously accelerating,many countries crossed the $10,000/yr barrier in just the last 20 years, and so the reduction in warfare after 1991 years has been drastic, even if there was little apparent reduction over the 1900-1991 period.

This explains the dramatic decline in war deaths across Europe, East Asia, and even Latin America over the last few decades. Thomas Friedman has a similar theory, called the Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention, wherein no two countries linked by a major supply chain/trade network (such as that of Dell Computer), have ever gone to war with each other, as the cost of war is prohibitive to both parties. But what can we expect in the future? Stay tuned for Part II tomorrow.

The World GGP (Gross Global Product) grew by a strong 4.3% in 2005. While this rate would merely be considered robust today, it is a rate unheard of before the mid-20th century. In fact, prior to the 16th century, 4.3% growth was what the world economy might have seen in an entire century, rather than just a single year.

However, this growth, which added $1.8 trillion to the now $44 trillion world economy, was not evenly distributed at all. In fact, more than one third of the $1.8 trillion was generated in just the US and China. A breakdown of the wealth creation, by country (in direct currency conversion, not purchase power parity (PPP)) :

United States : 25.0%

EU (a collection of 24 separate countries) : 12.6%

China : 9.5%

Japan : 5.8%

India : 3.0%

Russia : 2.5%

Rest of World : 41.6%

A large economy with a slow growth rate, like that of the EU, produces a similar portion of the pie as a small economy with a high growth rate, like that of China. This also means that India and China will soon be contributing a much larger percentage of the pie, as their currencies appreciate through increased exports.

An interesting survey by the PewResearchCenter, cited in The Economist, asks the citizens of several countries for their opinion of the United States. Comparing this to the socioeconomic history and current characteristics of each of these nations allows some corelations to present themselves.

Other pro-America nations such as Poland and Russia have also made the assumption that anti-American, socialist practices failed to deliver economic benefits for decades, so the opposite approach must be more beneficial.

Anti-Americanism does dominate among many non-English-speaking European countries. Americans may be saddened by this, considering how American sacrifices in troops and resources have saved Europe twice in the last 65 years. Most of these countries have declining populations and a shortage of children being produced. It is ironic that people such as the French and Germans, who consider their societies to be so great, have little desire to continue it through producing another generation of French and German people. Their crushing entitlement programs and demographic time bomb have doomed their societies, and the unwillingness of America to follow them down this path has caused great envy towards America among 55-70% of the population in some European countries. Read this article from Germany's Der Spiegel, authored by a rare European with a sense of historical context.

Lastly, the most staunch anti-Americanism is present among undemocratic Islamic societies. This is not a surprise. However, not included in this survey are Afghanistan and Iraq, where pro-American sentiments are slightly dominant.

The next time a fashion-parroting ignoramus or fifth-columnist informs you of how 'the rest of the world hates America', forward them this article, and remind them that India has more people than Europe and the Middle East put together. The delusions of fifth-columnists represent merely their fanatical hatred of a society that celebrates meritocracy, strong families, a powerful and proud military, and a great thirst for achievement.

Also refer them to this superb article by Victor Davis Hanson on how America can judge itself on the character of societies that exhibit anti-Americanism, and how most of their rhetoric masks a deep shame at being dependent on America. He states :

When Europe orders all American troops out; when Japan claims our textbooks whitewash the Japanese forced internment or Hiroshima; when China cites unfair trade with the United States; when South Korea says get the hell off our DMZ; when India complains that we are dumping outsourced jobs on them; when Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians refuse cash aid; when Canada complains that we are not carrying our weight in collective North American defense; when the United Nations moves to Damascus; when the Arab Street seethes that we are pushing theocrats and autocrats down its throat; when Mexico builds a fence to keep us out; when Latin America proclaims a boycott of the culturally imperialistic Major Leagues; and when the world ignores American books, films, and popular culture, then perhaps we should be worried. But something tells me none of that is going to happen in this lifetime.

Update : Some anti-Americans have exhibited racism towards Indians in the comments section, frustrated that a group of dark-skinned people can be economically successful and pro-American. They have also said that the survey has been rigged to falsely show that some countries are pro-US, but simultaneously claim that the same survey has not been rigged in countries that turned out to be anti-US. These anti-Americans, as usual, cannot answer simple questions posed to them. Read all about it in the comments section.

When we read stories or watch films set in a historical context, it is seductive to romanticize about being an Egyptian Pharoah, an English Knight, an Arab Sultan, or an 18th century French Aristocrat. But how desirable were their daily lives compared to ours today?

But surely the people at the very top of society, at any time in history, had enviable lives, did they not? To put this perspective, we need not go back any further than a century.

Consider John D. Rockefeller, a name nearly synonymous with wealth. At one point he had a net worth as high as 1/65th of US GDP at that time, a figure that would be the equivalent of $190 Billion today - four times what Bill Gates currently has. He owned land, employed people, and had political clout that would seem extraordinary at any time in history. But, having died in 1937 at the age of 98, Rockefeller never had photographs of his childhood, never watched a color film, never flew in a jet engine airplane, and never saw a photograph of the Earth taken from space. If Rockefeller wished to travel from New York to Chicago, it took him and his entourage more than a day. If his servant cut him during a morning shave (or even if he did it himself), a cloth bandage was the only kind available. His underwear did not have elastic, and since no cohort of servants could have realistically alleviated that problem for him, he probably spent every day accustomed to irritating hassles that would be unacceptable to even the poorest Americans today. He couldn’t have even obtained a tube of mint-gel toothpaste or a can of chilled Coca-Cola from a soda machine.

The same applied to Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, and JP Morgan. While they had immense political, purchasing, and hiring power, the diversity of what they could do was limited by our standards, and we might actually have found some portions of their lifestyles to be inconvenient and monotonous.They, in turn, had electricity, phonographs, railroads, and slow automobiles that may have made them think that the world of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington was deprived, and so on.

Even as the ability to purchase land and hire the services of others has become increasingly expensive with time (but still at a rate consistent with GDP growth), the cost and diversity of goods available to the average person continues to improve remarkably, and, of course, this trend will continue to accelerate.

While it took electricity, automobiles, and air travel decades to evolve from invention to commoditization in the United States, the process of diffusion is now shortening to years. One merely needs to internalize The Impact of Computing to grasp this surging pace. Needless to say, if we can chuckle at the limitations of John D. Rockefeller’s world a century later, by 2030 we may be able to poke fun at out own world of 2006 to the same extent.A world where there were no hypersonic passenger aircraft, no intelligent robots, no self-driving cars, no virtual reality entertainment, and no easy cure for cancer may seem brutal and boring by then.

Thus, the advance and democratization of technology transcends perceptions about wealth and poverty over the course of time, and it is debatable whether it was better to be a super-wealthy American in 1920, a moderately wealthy American in 1960, or an average American in 2006. Which would you choose?

Refer back to Part I here, where we discuss that despite the many stunning advances in medicine, there is still something within us that doubts that our present lives could be extended to 100 years.

The exponentially progressing advances in genomic and proteomic science will cure many genetic predispositions that an individual may have to certain diseases, again, with medical knowledge currently doubling every 8 years. Programmable nanobots that can keep us healthy from inside, by detecting cancerous cells or biochemical changes very early, are also a near-certainty by the 2020s. Furthermore, if just half of the world's 8 million millionaires were each willing to pay $500,000 to add 20 healthy, active years to their lives, the market opportunity would be (4 million X $500,000) = $2 trillion. The technological trend and market incentive is definitely in place for revolutions in this field.

But that is still not quite enough to assure that the internal mechanisms that make cells expire by a certain time, or the continuous damage done by cosmic rays perpetually going through our bodies, can be fully negated.

Ray Kurzweil, in his essay "The Law of Accelerating Returns", seems confident that additions to human lifespan will grow exponentially. While I agree with most of his conclusions in other areas, over here, I am not convinced that this growth is accelerating at the moment. I feel that the new advances will be increasingly more complex, and only the most high-informed and disciplined individuals will be able to capitalize on the technologies available to them to extend their lifespan. This will benefit a few people, but not enough to lift the broader average by much.

However, where I do agree with Kurzweil and other Futurists is the concept of a Technological Singularity and Post-Human existence. The advances in biotechnology and nanotechnology will become so advanced that humans will be able to reverse-engineer their brains re-engineer their entire bodies down to the molecular level. In fact, you could effectively transfer your 'software' (your mind) into upgraded hardware. This is not as crazy as it sounds, as even today, many devices are used within or near the body in order to prolong or augment human life, and many of these are fully part of The Impact of Computing; so both their sophistication and number could rise rapidly.

This potentially will afford immortality to the human mind for those fortunate enough to be around in 2050 or so. Of course, as the years progress, we will have a better idea of how realistic this possibility actually is.

So that is my conclusion. Average human life expectancy will make moderate but unspectacular gains for the next 50 years, with only those who maintain healthy lifestyles and are deeply aware of the technologies available to them living past the age of 100. This will be true until the Technological Singularity, where humans *may* be able to separate their minds from their bodies, and reside in different, artificially engineered bodies. This is a vast subject which I will describe in more detail in future posts. For some reading, go here.

There is a lot of speculation about whether new medical science will allow not just newborn babies to live until 100, but even people who are up to 40 years old today. But how much of it is realistic?

At first glance, human life expectancy appears to have risen greatly from ancient times :

Neolithic Era : 22

Roman Era : 28

Medieval Europe : 33

England, 1800 : 38

USA, 1900 : 48

USA, 2005 : 78

But upon further examination, the low life expectancies in earlier times (and poorer countries today) are weighed down by a high infant mortality rate. If we take a comparison only of people who have reached adulthood, life expectancy may have risen from 45 to 80 in the last 2000 years. This does not appear to be as impressive of a gain rate.

But, if you index life expectancy against Per Capita GDP, then the slow progress appears differently. Life expectancy began to make rapid progress as wealth rose and funded more research and better healthcare, and since Economic Growth is Accelerating, an argument can be made that if lifespans jumped from 50 to 80 in the 20th century, they might jump to 100 by the 2020s.

But that still seems to be too much to expect.

We hear that if cancer and cardiovascular disease were cured, average lifespans in America would rise into the 90s. We acknowledge that medical knowledge is doubling every 8 years or so. We see in the news that a gene that switches off aging has been found in mice. We even know that the market demand for such biotechnology would be so great - most people would gladly pay half of their net worth to get 20 more healthy, active years of life - that it will attract the best and brightest minds.

Today, about 42,000 Americans die each year in road accidents. Most of these are young people, including thousands of children. On top of the tragic loss of life, this is very costly to the economy. From police, ambulance, emergency room, insurance, legal, and funeral resources to the productivity lost, each casualty may cost an average of $2 million. This totals to $84 billion in cost to the US economy each year. However, one detail has gone nearly unnoticed about this grim statistic : the number has not risen in over a decade, despite population and automobile growth.

The rate of fatality reduction will begin to slightly accelerate with a raft of new innovations about to make their way into cars. Nanotechnology is bringing new materials science to car parts, with strong carbon fiber components weighing a fraction of their steel predecessors. With lighter vehicle weights and stronger bumpers fewer accidents will be fatal, with continual improvement through each successive advance in nanomanterials.

The nanomaterials and electronic systems may at first generate false complacence and carelessness among drivers, who assume that the safety systems can negotiate any situation. Once this belief dissipates, we will see accelerating declines in annual traffic deaths each year. This will spare the lives of thousands of children who might not have otherwise had a chance to become adults. Economically, this will translate into lower auto, medical, and life insurance premiums, fewer traffic jams, and less wastage of police resources.

Prediction : By 2020, average US traffic deaths will have dropped to only 25,000 per year, despite the greater US population by then. This is against 43,000 in 2004 and 42,000 in 1995.

President Bush's critical visits to India and Pakistan were bound to be anything but dull, and two events have occured in the last 12 hours that signify not only the diverging brand images of both India and Pakistan, but also how many issues of global importance converge on this region.

As India's brand image evolves to one of a globally influential democracy with rapidly growing, knowledge-based industries, the brand image of Pakistan continues to degenerate into that of a state full of Al-Qaeda terrorists and those sympathetic towards them. This cannot be attributed to Islam alone, as India still has about the same aggregate number of Muslims as Pakistan, yet Indian Muslims rarely have been the cause of such suicide-bombings.

We are witnessing a divergence in the fortunes of India and Pakistan (and Bangladesh), which were all one country until 1947. Can Pakistan change from a dangerous path to join Indian on a productive one? For the future of the world, it must.